Dogs, ducks and pythons were all subjects of the Sadsbury Township Supervisor meeting held on Wednesday, July 14.

A township resident, Duane Griggs, had been in attendance previously to bring to the attention of supervisors a problem he was having with a neighbor's dog entering his property. In the past, the dog had attacked some of his ducks.

Since that time, he has been doing some investigating, in terms of what kinds of steps he could take to remedy the situation, and imparted that information during the July meeting.

He had contacted the County Commissioners and they told him they had nothing to do with the dog ordinance.

Griggs said he had a long discussion with the dog warden who had come out to pick up a dog on his property. The warden provided Griggs with an informational booklet entitled, “The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement.”

He explained further that he received several names of people on the upper levels of the organization. Griggs called and asked how they handle situations like this and asked specifically what other cities and townships did.

He was told that other municipalities generally adopt an ordinance that is the same as the dog law of the state. They also contract an animal control officer to enforce the laws.

This, according to Griggs, creates the funds necessary to pay for any equipment, etc. needed if the township were to contract an animal control officer.

“What that would do would let all the fines that were collected by the control officer to be put back into the municipality in order to fund the contract with the animal control officer,” Griggs expounded.

Supervisor Roy Whaley asked if any local municipalities were doing anything similar. He also indicated that there are many dogs in the township because it is a rural area.

Griggs said he would ascertain the information. Whaley said any kind of contract worker would probably need insurance,, etc. At that point, Township Solicitor R. Charles Thomas said a contract worker might be considered to be a township employee.

Whaley said that if an animal control person did contract with the municipality, he or she would have to show proof of insurance and so forth.

Griggs wasn't positive about the particulars and said he would be investigating further. He also said he had a court date on the following day with the owner of one of the dogs and they would be appearing before Judge Marwood. Griggs said he was glad he was going before this particular judge because, in his opinion, she had a good record with things of this nature.

Whaley said that at least Griggs had the opportunity to have the dog warden in front of the judge as well, and that might be advantageous.

There was some discussion about how other states have microchips implanted into pets so that if they do end up causing trouble and are taken into the pound, the authorities can track the owners and fine them. In Griggs' opinion, people might not retrieve their dogs from the pound for the fear of being fined. It's the fines that keep the animal control people in business because the funds are used to pay them.

Whaley thanked Griggs for bringing them up to speed and said the ball was in his court. With that, Griggs said he would be looking into the matter as much as possible.

The ducks and dogs were out of the way and in slithered the python. A couple who lives on the east side, Mr. and Mrs. Ullstrom, approached supervisors to let them know that their neighbor had a young python. This caused them some concern because they have lived in Florida, which has been in the news due to pythons being turned free and then showing up in neighborhoods.

They expressed concern that something might happen due to the kids that live in the area. They were not happy that there did not seem to be any kind of rules on the books pertaining to owning snakes when there are laws in terms of dog licenses.

Mr. Ullstrom said that he felt snakes and exotic animals in general should be licensed due to the threat that he perceived.

R. Charles said that he had investigated the codes and found some interesting things still on the books. He said there are actual bounties for killing copperheads, rattlesnakes and porcupines but there was no legislation relative to the control of other snakes.

Whaley said that he was aware of the larger cities in the state having various ordinances in terms of exotic animals but wasn't certain about the snakes either.

The resident expressed the fear of the snake getting out of the house and asked who would be responsible for such if something awful unfolded. He was told that the owner would be but, Mr. Ullstrom wondered if she would even admit to owning the animal if someone was injured.

Mr. and Mrs. Ullstrom said their bottom line was that they would like an ordinance stating that pet snakes need to be registered.

Supervisor Kevin VanHonk told them the best course of action would be to contact Representative Evans and/or Senator Robbins about this since they would be able to provide more information and would, more than likely, lead them in the right direction.

Supervisors also thought it might be worth their while to call Meadville officials to see how they handle this kind of scenario.

The Ullstroms are going to follow through with those recommendations.